The point i was trying to make is that there are many traditions in the western culture that involve masking one's face. Most people in western society look upon the niqab as an oddity; something that has no parallel in our own societies. However, the parallels abound, and we simply take them for granted. I think you can agree with me on that, Alex.
Whether they are worn for religious, political, or traditional reasons, the niqab is a personal expression. This reminds me of victorian times, when women weren't allowed to show any skin because it would distract men and cause the end of the world as we know it... many very biased and downright discriminatory laws are written under the veil of "security."
There are parallels in a literal sense, Alex alluded to one but these are not considered true freedoms of expression, religious or otherwise in the sense we're discussing here because most are so embedded in the fabric of our societies as to be accepted unconciously. Alex's point, and I agree is that the wearing of the niqab is not one of them, in our society most certainly nor is it so in the wider muslim society.
NB The Victorian example is largely irrelevent, because that was primarily about morality and had nothing to do with security - unless one believed the sight of well formed ankle could incite criminal activity. It may have done but I consider it unlikely.
I can't help but feel that this is at least in part a veiled (no pun intended) attempt to appease what may be a growing backlash within a predominately Christian Western society for perhaps having conceded too much to the increasing demands of, inter alia, the Muslim faith. Perhaps in the name of tolerance for fear of tarring them with that broad Islamic terrorist brush.
But, lets be fair; many Islamic states don't extend the same level of tolerance for western 'decadence' and that apparant imbalance I'm sure has caused resentment, in fact I know it has, I hear such comments often. Of course there is a world of difference between what can be demanded in the ones home and society as a whole. Inevitably some will see tolerance as surrender, but it's not surrender it's balance. Should we set a high standard of tolerance? Of course we should, but who decides how high, you, me, our Government?
I agree with you that the use of security is weak but these days it's a convenient vehicle for such legislation. But there is precedent, many institutions (banks notably) deny the wearing of full face bike helmets etc on their premises for security reasons. In that instance no one is claiming exemption based on a historical religious right and neither should one be claimed in the case of the niqab, why because one simply doesn't exist.
But, where security is a
genuine concern, any right to religious expression, real or not should be a secondary consideration. For example, are you suggesting that people should be allowed to pass US border controls
without proper identification or be issued with key identity documents showing them veiled? Your indignation is heartfelt I'm sure but think about this before you say in blanket terms,
it's wrong. What's really wrong is that such considerations are necessary at all.
The point made about disrimination against the difficulties veiling causes the hard of hearing; no lip reading, muffled speech etc was interesting, I don't consider that discrimination, because in day to day life no right to 'clear speech' exists though I
do consider it rather inconsiderate, but then of course is asking a person to show their face against
their beliefs any less so? Now, consider a professional environment; teaching, healthcare, the law or it's enforcement; would such a request
still be so unreasonable?
I'm pushing the point here of course but you surely must concede there is a line to be drawn, that's easy, the hard part is knowing where to draw it.